Dataset Information

Reporting non-adherence in cluster randomised trials: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Treatment non-adherence in randomised trials refers to situations where some participants do not receive their allocated treatment as intended. For cluster randomised trials, where the unit of randomisation is a group of participants, non-adherence may occur at the cluster or individual level. When non-adherence occurs, randomisation no longer guarantees that the relationship between treatment receipt and outcome is unconfounded, and the power to detect the treatment effects in intention-to-treat analysis may be reduced. Thus, recording adherence and estimating the causal treatment effect adequately are of interest for clinical trials. OBJECTIVES:To assess the extent of reporting of non-adherence issues in published cluster trials and to establish which methods are currently being used for addressing non-adherence, if any, and whether clustering is accounted for in these. METHODS:We systematically reviewed 132 cluster trials published in English in 2011 previously identified through a search in PubMed. RESULTS:One-hundred and twenty three cluster trials were included in this systematic review. Non-adherence was reported in 56 cluster trials. Among these, 19 reported a treatment efficacy estimate: per protocol in 15 and as treated in 4. No study discussed the assumptions made by these methods, their plausibility or the sensitivity of the results to deviations from these assumptions. LIMITATIONS:The year of publication of the cluster trials included in this review (2011) could be considered a limitation of this study; however, no new guidelines regarding the reporting and the handling of non-adherence for cluster trials have been published since. In addition, a single reviewer undertook the data extraction. To mitigate this, a second reviewer conducted a validation of the extraction process on 15 randomly selected reports. Agreement was satisfactory (93%). CONCLUSION:Despite the recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement extension to cluster randomised trials, treatment adherence is under-reported. Among the trials providing adherence information, there was substantial variation in how adherence was defined, handled and reported. Researchers should discuss the assumptions required for the results to be interpreted causally and whether these are scientifically plausible in their studies. Sensitivity analyses to study the robustness of the results to departures from these assumptions should be performed.

SUBMITTER: Agbla SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6485377 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting non-adherence in cluster randomised trials: A systematic review.

Agbla Schadrac C SC DiazOrdaz Karla K

Clinical trials (London, England) 20180402 3

<h4>Background</h4>Treatment non-adherence in randomised trials refers to situations where some participants do not receive their allocated treatment as intended. For cluster randomised trials, where the unit of randomisation is a group of participants, non-adherence may occur at the cluster or individual level. When non-adherence occurs, randomisation no longer guarantees that the relationship between treatment receipt and outcome is unconfounded, and the power to detect the treatment effects i ...[more]

PMID: 29608096

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incidence and characteristics of randomised controlled trials that report using the modified intention to treat approach, and how the approach is described.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, HighWire Press, Science-Direct, Ingenta, Medscape, BioMed Central, Springer, and Wiley, from inception to December 2006.Main outcome measuresIncidence of trials in which use of modified intention to treat was reported, and how the approach was described (classified according to the type and number of deviations from the intention to treat approach).Results475 randomised controlled trials reported use of a modified intention to treat analysis. Of these, 76 (16%) were published in five highly cited general medical journals. The incidence of all trials that reported use of modified intention to treat published in journals indexed in Medline increased from 0.006% in 1982-6 to 0.5% in 2002-6 (P<0.001 for linear trend). When the description of the modified intention to treat was examined in each trial, 192 (40%) reported one type of deviation from the intention to treat approach, 261 (55%) reported two or more types, and 22 (5%) did not describe any type. In 266 (56%) of the trials the deviation was related to the treatment received, in 196 (41%) to a post baseline assessment, in 118 (25%) to a baseline assessment, in 108 (23%) to a target condition, and in 23 (5%) to follow-up. Post-randomisation exclusions occurred in 380 (80%) trials. The results reported by 270 of the 352 (77%) superiority trials favoured the drug under investigation. All of the 123 trials using equivalence or non-inferiority methods to investigate interventions reported results that favoured their assumptions.ConclusionsRandomised controlled trials that report using a modified intention to treat are increasingly being published in the medical literature. The descriptions of such an approach were ambiguous, and may cover any type of descriptions for exclusion, such as missing data and deviation from protocol. Explicit statements about post-randomisation exclusions should replace the ambiguous terminology of modified intention to treat.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess aspects of the internal validity of recently published cluster randomised trials and explore the reporting of information useful in assessing the external validity of these trials.DesignReview of 34 cluster randomised trials in primary care published in 2004 and 2005 in seven journals (British Medical Journal, British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice, Preventive Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics).Data sourcesNational Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed.Data extractionTo assess aspects of internal validity we extracted data on appropriateness of sample size calculations and analyses, methods of identifying and recruiting individual participants, and blinding. To explore reporting of information useful in assessing external validity we extracted data on cluster eligibility, cluster inclusion and retention, cluster generalisability, and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to health providers in clusters.Results21 (62%) trials accounted for clustering in sample size calculations and 30 (88%) in the analysis; about a quarter were potentially biased because of procedures surrounding recruitment and identification of patients; individual participants were blind to allocation status in 19 (56%) and outcome assessors were blind in 15 (44%). In almost half the reports, information relating to generalisability of clusters was poorly reported, and in two fifths there was no information about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.ConclusionsCluster randomised trials are essential for evaluating certain types of interventions. Issues affecting their internal validity, such as appropriate sample size calculations and analysis, have been widely disseminated and are now better addressed by researchers. Blinding of those identifying and recruiting patients to allocation status is recommended but is not always carried out. There may be fewer barriers to internal validity in trials in which individual participants are not recruited. External validity seems poorly addressed in many trials, yet is arguably as important as internal validity in judging quality as a basis for healthcare intervention.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.DesignReview of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.SettingCluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.Results77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).ConclusionsReporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.

Dataset Information

Reporting non-adherence in cluster randomised trials: A systematic review.

Publications

Reporting non-adherence in cluster randomised trials: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure